Colorado/Colorado State Game

[Derek Teigen]

I saw a play that made me do a double take and I wanted to discuss it.  There was a Colorado field goal attempt that (I think) was tipped at the LOS and the ball bounced into the endzone  and there was a Colorodo player rushing to get it closely followed by a Colorado State players.  When the Colorado player got to the ball he kicked it out  of the endzone.  The official then blew the play dead.  I thought this should have been a penalty and Colorado State should have started on their own 30 yard line.

Another question, on field goals that result in the ball resting in the endzone if the ball was not tipped do you blow the play dead once the ball crosses the goal line.

thank you.

[Legacy Zebra]

Whether it was touched behind the line of scrimmage or not is irrelevant. If a kick is untouched beyond the neutral zone and touches the ground in the end zone, it is dead immediately. So all the player did was kick a dead ball.

[Derek Teigen]

OK.  But the whistle sounded when the Colorado player kicked the ball and not before so the only thing is I think the official should have blown his whistle sooner then because the ball had been in the endzone for several seconds with players running to it.

[dammitbobby]

From what you're describing, the official was likely just processing a lot of unusual information prior to blowing his whistle.  I'd imagine in that scenario an IW giving A another chance to kick is about the worst outcome he could have had.

[peterparsons]

OK.  But the whistle sounded when the Colorado player kicked the ball and not before so the only thing is I think the official should have blown his whistle sooner then because the ball had been in the endzone for several seconds with players running to it.

A whistle doesn't make the ball dead (unless an official blows an IW), it merely confirms the status of a ball that is already dead by rule.

On the play in question, I would expect that the officials under the goalposts knew that the ball had been touched upfield, but didn't know where it was touched in relation to the neutral zone. There may well have been a short communication over the crew O2O system from upfield to confirm that there was no touch beyond the neutral zone (or in the 3 yard extension for blocking a kick) to let the officials under the posts know that they could safely kill the play without the risk of an IW.

Having watched a video of it, there was nothing wrong with the way that this crew handled this play.

[Clear Lake ref]

So let’s take this scenario and say you don’t know about if there was a touch.

Go ahead and flag illegally kicking ball so that it can be picked up after conference?  Feels like the better option than trying to flag after the fact.

[zebrastripes]

https://youtu.be/qPZSXL_Azsc?feature=shared

I realize this foul doesn’t meet the definition of targeting, but it does meet the definition of a flagrant foul. Why did they not dump this defender? Because they wouldn’t be supported?

[JasonTX]

https://youtu.be/qPZSXL_Azsc?feature=shared

I realize this foul doesn’t meet the definition of targeting, but it does meet the definition of a flagrant foul. Why did they not dump this defender? Because they wouldn’t be supported?

If the kid doesn't go down, do you still have the same opinion?  We see shots like that all the time and the kid getting hit jumps right back up but the contact was just as hard.  We should judge it based on the hit itself and not because it caused an injury.  I'm not saying I disagree, just putting this out there for discussion.

[peterparsons]

The definition of flagrant in the book is:

"A flagrant personal foul is illegal physical contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury."

Does this hit meet that definition? If so, how and why?

[Covid 22]

1st, I am not a Dion Sanders fan.

2nd, this is a LBDPIDBFBSBDPwDB Unsportsmanlike Conduct & PD

Live ball Defensive Pass Interference with a Dead Ball Flagrant Blind Side Block on a Defenseless Player with a Dead Ball Unsportsmanlike Conduct for Taunting and Player Disqualification.

[dammitbobby]

I'm not sure this should be classed as a BSB, I think it's just dead ball, personal foul, late hit.

I disagree that this is flagrant, and I wouldn't have this as taunting, either.  I don't think it's flagrant, because broken ribs from a late chest shot to me isn't flagrant, it's just dirty.  If we say this is flagrant, then there should be an awful lot more flagrant ejections.

This is what I've always thought of as flagrant, not bone-jarring, guts-rearranging hard hits.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oizo1karZ7Q

(The other scenario I've always thought would be flagrant, but have never seen, is intentionally taking an opponent's helmet off by the face mask.)

[zebrastripes]

The definition of flagrant in the book is:

"A flagrant personal foul is illegal physical contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury."

Does this hit meet that definition? If so, how and why?

Hunter went to the hospital with a lacerated liver and can't play for at least the next few weeks. If he'd instead broken his sternum and had to have emergency surgery would that be enough for you to call it flagrant?

[zebrastripes]

I disagree that this is flagrant, and I wouldn't have this as taunting, either.  I don't think it's flagrant, because broken ribs from a late chest shot to me isn't flagrant, it's just dirty.  If we say this is flagrant, then there should be an awful lot more flagrant ejections.

This is what I've always thought of as flagrant, not bone-jarring, guts-rearranging hard hits.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oizo1karZ7Q

(The other scenario I've always thought would be flagrant, but have never seen, is intentionally taking an opponent's helmet off by the face mask.)

Most dead ball UNR fouls are two-handed shoves after the whistle, not sizing up a receiver and pummeling into his chest.

Based on some of the "nothing" (but by rule correct) targeting fouls that get players dumped, you can't tell me that this action is less worthy of an ejection.

[Covid 22]

I would call this Flagrant because it is intentional.  He sees the ball hit the ground and then goes around his teammate to make the hit (BS).  He then stood over the injured player and even took a step toward him.   

I am not a big fan of taking good clean hits out of football.   This one was wrong on so many levels.   

[JasonTX]

I think most hits in football are intentional.  Take the emotion and the fact that an injury happened away and we have a hit that happens in every game, just a bit late in this case.  Watching in slo motion doesn't help.  Watch it at full speed.  I would guess that everyone on this site has witnessed a hit just like this and you didn't blink twice or eject anyone because of it.  I expect this to be on Shaw's videos this week.

[bossman72]

If he wasn't injured, zero people would call for ejection.  Zero.

[peterparsons]

I would call this Flagrant because it is intentional.  He sees the ball hit the ground and then goes around his teammate to make the hit (BS).  He then stood over the injured player and even took a step toward him.   

I am not a big fan of taking good clean hits out of football.   This one was wrong on so many levels.

If the receiver had got his hands on the pass and then been hit in the same manner causing the ball to come loose and fall incomplete, what would you have? Good, clean hit, or DQ?

[Covid 22]

Good clean hit.  Assuming it was in the normal flow.  Kind of like the time we give to a pass rusher before he hits the QB after a ball is thrown. 

I was watching the game live at the time, and I saw this coming as soon as the ball hit the ground.  I thought, Surely he isn't going to do what I think he is going to do.  But he did.  If I had time to think that, he had plenty of time to pull off if he wanted to.

Someone mentioned that all tackles are intentional.  Correct.  But not all hits have the intention of hurting or punishing another player.   

There was another play this weekend that made me think of my old mentor.  The call just did not look right or in his terminology "It's like drinking out of a clean slop jar, it don't look right but it is OK."

A receiver on the left side after the snap stepped back to just behind the LOS.  the play was a sweep left.  A defensive player following the runner from just behind the LOS was blocked in an upright position with only the force of his momentum coming into play.  The receiver was flagged for BSB because the defender had his head turned to a 45 degree angle looking at the runner.  Good call by philospy but I don't like it.

[AlUpstateNY]

I'm not sure this should be classed as a BSB, I think it's just dead ball, personal foul, late hit.

I disagree that this is flagrant, and I wouldn't have this as taunting, either.  I don't think it's flagrant, because broken ribs from a late chest shot to me isn't flagrant, it's just dirty.  If we say this is flagrant, then there should be an awful lot more flagrant ejections.

This is what I've always thought of as flagrant, not bone-jarring, guts-rearranging hard hits.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oizo1karZ7Q

(The other scenario I've always thought would be flagrant, but have never seen, is intentionally taking an opponent's helmet off by the face mask.)

I'm not sure of the exact date, but the "Gladiatorial Games" were universally declared illegal long ago.  Never mid "bone-jarring, gut-rearranging (clean) hard hits", this foul was deliberate, intentional and AFTER THE BALL HIT THE GROUND and would clearly fit the colloquial description of a "CHEAP SHOT". The immediately following gesture, in and of itself, earned a disqualification.

We "Reap what we Sow" and that crew is very fortunate it didn't wind up presiding over a nasty riot.

[dammitbobby]

Good clean hit.  Assuming it was in the normal flow.  Kind of like the time we give to a pass rusher before he hits the QB after a ball is thrown. 

I was watching the game live at the time, and I saw this coming as soon as the ball hit the ground.  I thought, Surely he isn't going to do what I think he is going to do.  But he did.  If I had time to think that, he had plenty of time to pull off if he wanted to.

Someone mentioned that all tackles are flagrant.  Correct.  But not all hits have the intention of hurting or punishing another player.   

There was another play this weekend that made me think of my old mentor.  The call just did not look right or in his terminology "It's like drinking out of a clean slop jar, it don't look right but it is OK."

A receiver on the left side after the snap stepped back to just behind the LOS.  the play was a sweep left.  A defensive player following the runner from just behind the LOS was blocked in an upright position with only the force of his momentum coming into play.  The receiver was flagged for BSB because the defender had his head turned to a 45 degree angle looking at the runner.  Good call by philospy but I don't like it.

As I understand the play you described, if he had his hands out in front to initiate the block, regardless of whether the defender saw him or not, I don't think that's a foul, as he is allowed to block, just can't hit him forcefully. Guess it depends on your definition of forceful and what actually happened, but in my mind I wouldn't have a foul for this (unless it was significant momentum).

[dammitbobby]

I'm not sure of the exact date, but the "Gladiatorial Games" were universally declared illegal long ago.  Never mid "bone-jarring, gut-rearranging (clean) hard hits", this foul was deliberate, intentional and AFTER THE BALL HIT THE GROUND and would clearly fit the colloquial description of a "CHEAP SHOT". The immediately following gesture, in and of itself, earned a disqualification.

We "Reap what we Sow" and that crew is very fortunate it didn't wind up presiding over a nasty riot.

So can we all agree that this particular hit - irrespective of the context (ball hit the ground, defenseless, etc.) - talking about nothing but the hit itself - is not flagrant.  Can we all agree on that?

Because if we can, then a lot of us have a wrong definition of flagrant. 

ARTICLE 3. A flagrant personal foul is illegal physical contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury.

No mention of whether or not the hit is legal, illegal, after the whistle, or anything else.  If that hit is legal in other contexts, it cannot by definition be flagrant.  As in the example video I posted, there is never a scenario when stomping someone's junk is going to be a legitimate football action.  That to me is what makes it flagrant. 

(And yes, I am aware that the definition specifies 'illegal physical contact' but the point remains, if it's a clean hit in other contexts, it can't be flagrant even in a foul situation. 

JMO.

[Covid 22]

ARTICLE 3. A flagrant personal foul is illegal physical contact so extreme or deliberate that it places an opponent in danger of catastrophic injury.

The ball had hit the ground = Dead Ball.   The DB deliberately makes a punishing blow to a defenseless player. 

It looks to me like the blow meets all of the requirements.   

[dammitbobby]

But the hit was clean, in terms of he didn't target him, he didn't strike him; if that was a flagrant hit, then we'd be having flagrant fouls way, way more often.

[Covid 22]

One last question before I head to Memphis.

If after a play, a WR is running back to the LOS and he hits a LB with this type of contact and he does not see it coming, what would be the call?

[dammitbobby]

From me, dead ball UNS, with ejection. 

I would never argue that in the CO/CO ST game the hit in question was continuing football action, but it certainly is compared to the scenario you described.